Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

PatPending writes with a depressing excerpt from the UK's Metro: "The Google-owned video-sharing site YouTube has decided to introduce the ban [on weapons-related videos] for the UK only amid widespread unease about the increase in knife crime in the country. 'We recognise that there has been particular concern over videos in the UK that involve showing weapons with the aim of intimidation, and this is one of the areas we are addressing,' a YouTube spokesperson said. 'I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world,' she said."

Knives are this month's hysteria in the UK. That's not to say there isn't a problem with knife use in the UK. And it isn't to say that videos on YouTube can't be used for intimidation of specific people and so should be removed in such cases. But one day, the media suddenly went into a feeding frenzy, police chiefs were trotting out their most ridiculous arrays or seized weapons (including a photo of a Star Trek replica weapon at one point) and Home Secretaries were trying to look all grave and serious talking about the knife epidemic sweeping our nation.

It may be a serious issue. But it's definitely something that Labour are trying to use for political gain and as a fear stick.

But one day, the media suddenly went into a feeding frenzy, police chiefs were trotting out their most ridiculous arrays or seized weapons (including a photo of a Star Trek replica weapon at one point) and Home Secretaries were trying to look all grave and serious talking about the knife epidemic sweeping our nation.

I'm looking forward to the upcoming Brick Epidemic, the following Cobblestone Conundrum, and finally the Pointy-stick Problem.

Before it is all over you English won't be allowed possession of anything harder than mushy peas. I've no idea how you'll manage to cook them or mash them for that matter because anything sufficiently rigid enough to cook them in or mash them with will have been made illegal to possess.

I'm looking forward to the upcoming Brick Epidemic, the following Cobblestone Conundrum, and finally the Pointy-stick Problem.

If rocks and sticks are just as lethal and effective as guns and knives, as you claim, then why do you Americans insist you have to have the right to carry handguns, assault rifles, etc, etc? Just put a pointy stick in your back pocket.

Don't be a hypocrite: Guns and knives are designed to kill people (before you start sneering about butter knives, pop guns, etc; just assume the wo

There have already been calls in this country to ban kitchen knives with a point, I shit you not. Some chefs have said that you can use knives without points for most things anyway, and that pointless knives are the norm in China and they do OK.

Others point out that gang violence in China simply involves fatal hackings instead of fatal stabbings.

Don't be a hypocrite: Guns and knives are designed to kill people (before you start sneering about butter knives, pop guns, etc; just assume the words are defined sensibly as the lethal kind of offensive weapon). Say you want to carry them because you want to be able to kill people who annoy or frighten you.

I have never once in my life seen a knife that was designed to be a weapon. I have seen and own plenty which most certainly can be used as such, such as my meat cleaver. Of course, if I wanted to kill someone with a bladed weapon, I'd pick my axe, which should be able to split your skull just as easy as a log for my fireplace. And I regularly carry a sharp knife or scissors with pointed ends around with me, because I regularly find myself needing to cut things cleanly, or to simply clean the space below my fingernails.

Your assertion is ridiculous, and you are either a liar or an idiot to have made it.

Say you want to carry them because you want to be able to kill people who annoy or frighten you. Don't claim they are no more dangerous than "pointy sticks".

--Except that:

1) He didn't claim anything.

2) He didn't even imply that they were equal. He pointed out a "slippery slope" problem, moving from the most obviously dangerous, to the ludicrously least dangerous--his point being that if we try to eliminate dangerous items from society, it gets pretty silly pretty quickly.

Please make sure you understand the rhetorical structure of the post you're replying to before you jump down someone's throat.

The UK does have a problem with kids stabbing each other but to be honest I think the news reporting on it makes it worse more than any Youtube video.

The news makes it seems like it's a bigger deal (if everyone is doing it then I should be) and it shows you a kid can make national headlines quite easily and people are more obsessed with fame these days.

OK, so where does your link show skyrocketing knife crimes correlating to a ban of knives? That's what the GP claimed.

Also, the Reason article you link to is from 2002, so is rather outdated. Violent crimes have dropped in the UK since then. And I'm not seeing the claimed correlation between UK gun laws and the incidence of violent crime. Again, linky: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6906554.stm [bbc.co.uk]

From your link on Obama, he states "As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." You do realize that gun control and safety measures are different than banning guns, don't you?

The funny thing is that your own links rebut the argument you were trying to make with them!

"As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." You do realize that gun control and safety measures are different than banning guns, don't you?

Gun control advocates have employed a slippery slope approach to accomplishing what they cannot do outright. For example. here in Massachusetts, handgun licenses are issued only at the discretion of the local chief of police. While that sounds reasonable on its face, what this means in terms of real-world effect is that the police chiefs of certain towns and cities have de facto repealed the Second Amendment for most citizens. Patterns of abuse range from outright denial of a permit to a qualified and law-abiding citizen, to simply never allowing the process to finish, by dragging it out for months.

My right to vote, or free speech, or freedom of worship do not depend on my police chief's permission, nor should they. Why should my right to bear arms be restricted? I have not been deemed a threat to anyone around me. The free speech and fifth amendment rights of a convicted murderer/rapist receive more protection than the self-defense rights of an innocent man in this country.

More guns means less crime in some areas. It means more crime in other areas. Generally speaking I support gun rights, but I wish people who do would admit that in very socially messed up places, giving more people guns does not improve things. If it did, then the gangs in LA would be at peace, right?

Guns as a deterrent depends on people valuing their lives, accepting mortality, but believing they can live longer if they're careful. If you're young enough, tough enough, dumb enough, or your life is shitty enough, that might not be the case, and thus you end up amplifying the mess by giving everyone a license to kill.

Guns don't cause violence, but they don't uniformly solve it either. And in some places they can exasperate it. When gun control people and gun rights people can agree on these facts, maybe a productive discussion can begin.

California and LA have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. The dangers of LA actually demonstrate why making it harder for honest citizens to possess guns is a bad idea.

'When gun control people and gun rights people can agree on these facts, maybe a productive discussion can begin.'

The second amendment exists to assure that no discussion is needed. In the United States at least, all gun control is illegal. Then again, the powers at be aren't likely to be concerned with the constitution since they have disarmed the citizenry.

In line with your suggestion, I propose all people who wish to use a knife possess a Boy Scout merit badge. This will solve any and all conceivable problems and issues once and for all, just like how licensed cars and guns have removed any possible dangers from these items.

After living in Moss Side (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moss_Side) since the late 1990s I reckon I have a unique perspective on Gun and Knife crime.One of the reasons I am very glad that firearms are illegal in this country is it makes it a lot easier for the police to arrest people who wave them around.

A few years ago I had one pointed at me while I walked down the road. The guy wielding it had just attempted to mug someone and had been disturbed by a large group of people. He felt intimidated enough to jump into a car and bail and I was walking up the road paying too much attention to his car as it sped off. This particular gang of thugs had been very active in my area and had already appeared on the police radar. The police watched them, then waited until they were all together one evening in someones house and paid them a visit. All of the people present in that house then got a mandatory 5 year sentence for the revolver, automatic pistol and submachine gun that was found in the middle of the table they were all sat around.

If possessing a firearm in a private residence was legal this would be much harder as you would have to catch them in process of committing a crime. Even if you could you may not have enough evidence to convict them all if some were just keeping a look out for potential victims. The fact is that there is no reason to own a firearm in an inner city area except to use on other people and the courts here take a very dim view of this, even iff you try and argue self defence.

Even if I chose to carry a weapon (illegally) for my own protection there is a high likelyhood I would not get a chance to use it. I have only been mugged once in Moss Side and I did not see it coming at all. The first I knew was when I got punched to the back of the head and was jumped by 3 people. In this situation a firearm would have been useless since all 3 were at close range.

The fact is that having a large number of untrained people with guns is not useful for society. The US has a much higher murder rate then the UK even though they allow private firearm ownership. Look at the page linked below and compare the US with other countries that have a much more restrictive policy on gun ownership like those in Europe. I know the US doesnt top this list, but it does come a lot higher that other countries with a similar economic and political status.

'One of the reasons I am very glad that firearms are illegal in this country is it makes it a lot easier for the police to arrest people who wave them around.'

If anything, Moss Side is evidence of what happens when guns are banned. Those with no morals have access to black market weapons and those with have no way to defend themselves. This isn't even about successfully pulling your weapon when the time comes, its about the bad guy knowing you are likely to have a gun and having to decide if your wallet is

The first is that correlation does not equal causation. Sure, the US has very liberal firearm laws, but that's not really the most important factor. Take a look at Canada. They have similar gun laws, but a much lower murder rate. Brazil has more restrictive laws, but a much higher murder rate.

The largest factor for these high murder rates is poverty. The US is a very wealthy place but neighborhoods of extreme poverty exist in most cities. Generally speaking wealthy people don't kill each other, poor people do. Passing a law criminalizing guns wouldn't save many lives, fixing the root cause would.

Second, waving a gun at somebody is a crime in the US. You just can't go about brandishing firearms here. I'm not sure why you seem to think that would make it more difficult to catch criminals. In the US having a automatic weapon (usually) doesn't make you a criminal, so they don't need to be caught. They only need to be caught if they actually commit a crime.

Funny you should bring that one up. My landlord just purchased a nice.45 cal a couple of weeks ago (tritium night sights, grip squeeze integral laser site, beautiful tool) because he got tired the second time he had to run from a bear while working on his farm outside of town. He said "when you look back and see something that big running after you, and catching up, and you're praying you left the RV door unlocked so you can get in quickly, you start thin

Well, I'm glad he's got something to make him feel better, but I'm not sure that even a.45 is going to slow down a bear much. As for the RV door, I don't think that'd necessarily slow down something like a grizzly much

You shoot the door's window and dive in, removing the question of whether or not is locked.

Good article. It says that crime rates in the UK are flat, or decreasing. The only reason the media are worried is because changing demographics are shifting poor people from Glasgow (and other traditionally poor regions) into London, and bringing crime closer to the reporters.

You got the evidence to back up your claims of crime in England dropping?[sic]

He's actually right on this matter. "Does he got the evidence?" No, but the Home Office do. I've provided instructions for finding the dox below, as well as an executive summary. All incidents of violent crime are dropping, and the only category of crime which has shown an increase is "Drug offences" which showed an 18% increase between 06/07 and 07/08.

Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun?

1. I like target shooting
2. I like to collect finely made items
3. I live way the hell out in the country, and coyotes have been taking some of the smaller livestock
4. I like to and it is legal
5. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away

(These may or may not apply to me personally)

The idiots on Youtube? Bust em. They shouldn't be allowed near a squirtgun.But a firearm in my hands is zero danger to you. You're in more danger from your neighbors car. Unless of course you try to do harm to me and mine.

The idiots on Youtube? Bust em. They shouldn't be allowed near a squirtgun.But a firearm in my hands is zero danger to you.

Says who? Who decides who gets guns and who doesn't?

Those who support gun ownership frequently make the, probably critical, mistake of promoting gun rights for some, but no for others. Rights don't work that way. Either everybody has them, or everybody doesn't. If you argue for your right to own a handgun, then you must admit that that right must be given to any 18 year old street hooli

The traditional solution to stopping people climbing over your back garden walls, breaking into your house and stealing your stuff was to cement broken glass onto the top of your walls. On a sunny day, it would look quite pretty, especially if you used different colored bottles. Alternatively there is the metal railing with the fake spear tips on the top. These can be seen around public parks, although they do spear the occasional delinquent who tries to climb a tree to escape from the police.

Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun?

It's about freedom. As an American, I have certain rights that people before me fought and died to give me. One of these is gun ownership, as described in the constitution. As a competent, law-abiding citizen, I should be able to own a gun if I wish and be able to freely use it in certain instances, such as for sport or in cases where my life or someone else's life is directly being threatened. Even in the last scenario, I would not pull the trigger unless I had no choice.

Now, gun ownership isn't for everyone, and I can understand that. Some people feel the need to have a gun around for legitimate purposes, such as protection, collection, or hunting (I'm from Alabama, and quite a bit of hunting goes on down here) Some people don't want a gun, and that's okay, too.

Freedom is about letting both types of people have what they want. I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, but never at the expense of freedom.

Us Brits once fought for freedom too. It was called the English civil war, and Thomas Jefferson was inspired by it in the war for US independence. [citation needed, i know, but i can't be arsed. look it up, it's there].
When the parliamentarians found themselves up against the catholics, the new model army was formed, and people that NEEDED guns got them, in vast supply. I guess it's a different philosophy here. People fighting against a corrupt government weren't a loosely-knit group of people coming

I'm not surprised you got modded "flamebait"; how DARE you criticize Obama!Besides, he is definitely NOT planning on the same thing as England, he just wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons; you could still have your double-barrel shotguns, bolt action rifles and single action revolvers as long as you live outside of an Urban area. I guess a person could be concerned that he hasn't defined what an Urban area is...but still, shut up! he Gives us hope!

I'm not surprised you got modded "flamebait"; how DARE you criticize Obama!
Besides, he is definitely NOT planning on the same thing as England, he just wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons; you could still have your double-barrel shotguns, bolt action rifles and single action revolvers as long as you live outside of an Urban area. I guess a person could be concerned that he hasn't defined what an Urban area is...but still, shut up! he Gives us hope!

But, you can only possess those as long as you can find a gun store which would still be in operation. Under a 1999 Obama proposal [volokh.com], all gun stores within five miles of any school or park. Such a law, if actually proposed and passed, would kill off pretty much every gun store in the country which wasn't way in the boonies. Now, this admittedly wasn't proposed as a bill (as that would require him to have actually done something). This was proposed in a speech at an anti-rights rally. Yep, a real rights supporter he.;)

How did the English, who once ruled a vast empire, become such sissified little bitches? Ban guns, gun crime skyrockets. Ban knives, knife crime escalates.

Probably due to World Wars I and II, when the British faced huge odds, and the Americans refused to do anything but sell us ammunition at great cost. You know we only finished paying that debt off in the 1990's? Then the Americans finally joined in towards then end of both wars (after the Russians pulled out in WWI, and after Pearl Harbour in WWII).
We were still hurting from WWI, when some really stupid field marshals decided that the best offence was the bodies of tens of thousands of young men being thr

How did the English, who once ruled a vast empire, become such sissified little bitches?

We have knives.

The USA has Janet Jackson's nipple... or, in some states, try mentioning dice (gambling!) or magic (religion!) in a school maths book.

I remember once, while visiting the USA, I caught a showing of the British political satire/thriller "To Play The King" on PBS. PBS felt it necessary to prefix the show with a patronising lecture on why monarchies were a bad thing and the US had fought a war of independence against the idea. I was astounded - we might get warnings about potentially offensive material/flashing lights/may contain nuts before a show, we might get slightly edited versions of shows which are shown when the kids are awake, we might get "helpline numbers" if a show mentions child abuse or AIDS but we do not get lectured on how we should interpret the show we are about to see.

Different folks, different disproportionate obsessions, I suppose. Now, the knife crime figures are being shamelessly talked up at the moment, but I think its pretty safe to say that they account for more deaths than "wardrobe malfunction".

Yeah I've never understood this obsession with banning weapons or even pictures of weapons on the left which I consider myself a part of BTW. If the state disarms FIRST maybe, until then fuggit about it. Standing a-prori naked and defenseless against governments that have murdered literally hundreds of millions of people in the last hundred years is just not very bright. And to make it a thought crime is even more appalling.

Because he's talking bollocks, that's why. There is more gun crime in New York, than there is crime in England. Our gun control works, and shootings are a rare event, when they happen it still makes the news. The reason guns aren't involved in crime within the UK: the police aren't armed, and the citizens aren't armed. If the police or citizens have guns, then the criminals know they need guns, a whole lot more people die. And it's rarely the criminals.

Of course there are more people shooting other people in NY than in, say, London. When people are helpless against the (gun owning) criminals, they have to do what they tell them, or die.

What? Do please show me your statistics that show a rocketing rate of armed burglaries in London.

(Hint: one reason why hardly anyone gets shot during burglaries in London is, in fact, that burglars in London generally don't have guns. There's a reason why even the police in Britain generally see no need to carry a lethal

I think it's really oppressive when governments do things like telling a company that they'd have to do something like this (which the government did *not* do)... But it's almost scarier that they're doing it on their own initiative as a company. It's like one of those many situations in which someone will self-regulate to a stronger degree than is necessary just to present the appearance that outside regulation is not necessary. I certainly believe that Google/YouTube has the right to do this, but not necessarily that they should. So is it better that this came from within rather than from external forces?

Actually, if a company does this on its own because they are concerned about it, that's called "being responsible." If a government requires it via an official censorship policy, then I have a problem with it. Ideally it should work this way, with corporate entities being sensitive to the needs of of the communities they do business in, so governments don't feel the need to intervene and implement sweeping, draconian limitations on everyone. You can still film yourself practicing your nunchuck skills or sla

No, corporations should make money. They shouldn't be (by themselves) responsible to other "communities" than to their shareholders. The reason is that making money is why they do exist; to behave differently is expecting them to behave irrationally.

That's a narrow view. First of all, if the company isn't publicly traded, then its job is to do whatever the owners want, which is frequently more complex than "make as much money as possible". So if we're talking about publicly traded companies, wouldn't companies benefit from positive public opinion? The company's job isn't just to make money this year--it's to seek long term profitability, and that may involve "being responsible".

On another note, these companies, even the public ones, are run by their officers. Those officers are people with principles, whatever they be, and I would hope that these people follow their principles, as well as do their best to lead their company to success.

Uhm, it doesn't matter how much they raise or lower the taxes in California. There will always be a shortfall because non-discretionary spending is set (by law) at something like 103% of the state budget. Idiot people kept voting in mandatory money for their pet projects. 3% here, 5% there, and now we are required to spend more than will be available.

That is what Ahnold meant when he said the budget is inherently broken. Fixing it is proving impossible. No one is willing to cut even one dollar from anything. I'd like to see a (state) Constitutional amendment that penalizes the members of the assembly by not paying them for the periods when we don't have a budget. I think we're up to three months now. A 25% salary cut across the board for all assembly members sounds like a damn good idea. Alternately, we could just lynch a few of the bastards. Either way works for me.

no one seems to realize that there is no such thing as "gun" or "knife" crime. there is crime, and the most convenient tool to carry it out with for threatening people and causing harm. where guns are available this is the tool, where guns are not it's knives or bludgeoning implements.

'knife crime' is going up because that's what is available.

i've gotten a hell of a lot of decent information about my firearm from youtube (if you keep it to videos featuring nationally recognized figures you can't get steered too wrong, like todd jarett).

What about videos describing how to cut food properly? Are they going to ban all the videos that teach you how to cook too? Maybe TV shows or movies/trailers with violence in them? Yep, it's those darn youtube videos that are really causing all the violence.

According to the British Crime Survey (BCS), overall violent crime has decreased by 41% since a peak in 1995.Knives are used in about 8% of violent incidents, according to the BCS, a level that has largely remained the same during the past decade.

However:

But the BCS figures do not include under-16s, something which the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced this month would change.

Isn't it obvious what the real problem is? These videos implicitly question the effectiveness of the UK police state and are, thus, are doubleplusbad. After all, it makes no sense to have the telescreen speaking ill of big brother now does it?

I implore those who question the usefulness of the second amendment here in the U.S. to take a hard look at what's happening in the U.K. today. The slippery slope is very real.

Oh, give me a fucking break. I'm a member / supporter of a number of civil lib type orgs here in the UK, and we certainly do have our share of stupid, counter-productive, illiberal and potentially-authoritarian laws. But, really, I assure you that (apart from the insane law about protesting within a half-mile of Parliament, and similar special cases), free speech is really not a problem over here. "questioning the effectiveness of the UK police state"?! You've obviously never read the British tabloid press;

If you can't find your knife fix on youtube, there are plenty other clones of it out there to find it. Not to mention that these clone sites are often run by people who don't really give a flying **** about internet users outside their country of jurisdiction.
This is all just a big PR stunt. Whether it will have a positive or negative effect will be up to the users (and not the shareholders, they are happy with whatever Gootube does as long as it makes them money.)

What's the word for failing to draw a distinction between a representation of something and the thing being representing?

'I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world,

Because whatever that word is, this is it:

If I make this doll that looks like you, and use a piece of your hair, I can jab it with pins and you'll be injured. If we remove pictures of knifes from the internet, knife crime will fall. If we allow depictions of knives on the internet, knife crime will rise.

I'll happily stick to America, where I can legally defend myself with the pistol in my pocket.

And unfortunately, you might need to, since every criminal on every American street knows where to get a gun on the black market, with no background check or paper trail. If we didn't have so many handguns, we might not need so many handguns. (Hunting weapons and military rifles are a different story, and I won't go there - handguns are the real danger.)

I'll happily stick to America, where I can legally defend myself with the pistol in my pocket.

And unfortunately, you might need to, since every criminal on every American street knows where to get a gun on the black market, with no background check or paper trail. If we didn't have so many handguns, we might not need so many handguns. (Hunting weapons and military rifles are a different story, and I won't go there - handguns are the real danger.)

Because bans on things like drugs and, in the past, alcohol worked so well, didn't it? Those mentioned criminals are breaking several laws acquiring those guns. All the paper trail and background check requirements did exactly what to stop that? It seems, correct me if I'm wrong, that you seem to be advocating more of the same ineffective regulations and laws. Thus, the law abiding will be disarmed, or hampered, and the criminal element will simply laugh and carry on business as usual. See Chicago, NYC, and

So I guess all of the awesome surveillance the UK is imposing upon its citizens [bbc.co.uk] is doing much for crime...why not take them all out and put the money into a national Internet firewall? Maybe THEN humans will have only happy thoughts.

Is it common to disallow fictional work, such as movies, that have guns or knives used as intimidation? YouTube is a common place for budding movie producers to show short films, too. But if this kind of thing is censored in UK, then I guess YouTube doing it is going along with the flow.

...and YouTube becomes a much less interesting place. All you'll have left is a bunch of gossip videos by teens (oh wait those could be controvertial too) and a bunch of gaming video captures (isn't that controvertial too given the copyright issue over the game content). Well we can always just show people at Sunday school (oh no we can't - what's more controvertial than religion).

Seriously all this is is pandering. YouTube knows that most interesting content has a controversial element and that almost anything could be offensive to someone. It's just those who shout loudest that are too big a pain in the behind to bother butting heads with so they comply with these demands. (Ah the irony of giving in to terrorism, when the subject is weapons and violence).

The sensible and sane way to deal with this is simply to remove videos that contain illegal content (and bring themt to the attention of the authorities). Wouldn't most of the offending videos with guns and knives be in some way illegal? If not they should wait for the law to be modified.

What a noodle-spined move on the part of Google! If only UN language were so effective on the rogue nations of the world!

"I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world," said Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who has also stated that police should restrict photography by citizens. Indeed, why not suppress free speech in in all ways in Britain and in the rest of the world, you dunce? It would certainly decrease violence!

The hysterical myths about computer game violence have in many cases been debunked, as recently discussed [slashdot.org], and why are YouTube videos any different? Movies, games and books which incite dissent are next on the worldwide chopping block, folks! To see Google assume the position on this debate, which includes no specific legislation, is a grim forecast on government intervening in our daily lives with their friendly companies on Politically Correct leashes opening our bedroom doors for them.

Reporting of knife crime in the UK has increased dramatically. It just happens to be what the papers happen to be focusing on this year. Last year it was the McCann thing. A few years ago it was the great paedophile threat, which came about due to one or two high-profile cases featuring photogenic young girls. Before that it was... thankfully I can't remember.

Anyway, the papers finally decided they needed new "fear" stories to run and grab headlines with. Knife crime appears to be the one they're rallied around this time.

You are still much, much more likely to die in a car accident than to be stabbed to death by a "teenage yob". Doesn't make good headlines though or instill the same level of fear though, does it?

The main problem within the UK is that over the last few decades we have decided that we have rights rather than understand that responsibilities go with those rights. We have always had a "thug" (or gang) culture somewhere in our society, but we have never had the leadership to sort out these problems directly, instead we blame ethic minorities, drugs, gambling and any other area of perceived illegal activity, all of which are indirectly related to thug culture. However, we never appear to properly examine the problem because we are too quick to blame and not to understand.

I have a very good example. I was involved in a serious car accident on Friday, quite frankly I should not be here, yet alone sitting at the computer uninjured. The accident was caused by the car I was travelling in (being driven by my future father in-law) was side-swiped by a left hand drive Portuguese lorry trying to more into the middle lane of the motorway, without realising that we were there. The car spun, hit the soft embankment, rolled twice and dug itself in upright on all four wheels.

There is a known problem with these lorries in that they have a massive blind spot. Unfortunately, knowing our xenophobic press, if the actually bother to do their research as this problem is quite serious, they would seek to ban every foreign lorry on British roads, even though Irish lorries are Right Hand Drive and British and Irish lorries cold potentially have the same blind stop when driven in Continental Europe, as they drive on the right instead of the left.

I myself don't blame the lorry driver in so much that he was doing his job. I do feel that the company that hired the lorry and haulier hold responsibility for attempting to cut costs.

For want of a better expression, there is technology in a Â£30 mobile phone (i.e. camera and screen) that could be used as an effective blind spot mirror. In addition, many cars today have reversing sensors that could be employed to warn lorry drivers that the lane next to them is not clear.

Now what has this got to do with knife crime? not a lot you would think? Well actually it has. Sadly you are more likely to die at the hands of a car than a knife in the UK. On that level will You Tube be banning the viewing of any car on their website? Of course not. Cars (and I suppose lorries) can be used to kill and so can knives, but then knives are even more vital to society than cars; you can't cut your food without a knife, but you can walk instead of drive.

So, when are we answer the question properly - Why do people wish to carry knives for self defence?

Well let me respond, being a professional lorry driver.Here's a fact - it's just as bad in a right hand drive in the UK. And the only time it's dangerous, is when a car drives at the same speed while along side instead of overtaking properly. Add to this the normal car drivers habit of driving right up close to the back of the trailer before suddenly swinging out to overtake. One minute your mirrors are clear and you can see about 5 or six cars at varying distances behind you. You gauge the time is right, c

If you actually read the blog post you linked, you would find that 'vet' "has been used in Britain since the early years of the 20th century". Actually we use it more widely than the screening of a candidate for public office: I consider it a straight synonym for 'screen' in the sense of investigation and filtering. The BBC usage of vetting videos is one example; another would be the vetting of people who work in a security-conscious environment.

It's been in common usage in American English for at least as long as I've been alive as well.

Maybe the meaning is slightly different, we would vet people for corporate positions, but we sometimes vet software for suitability in a process. Either way it's a try before you buy idea, rather than a definitive selection.

Vet is a perfectly cromulent word. A word I loathe more, is "tap", which is increasingly a slang for sex, and also choosing someone to a position. One could say "McCain tapped Palin for VP posit

Mod parent up. True English has uses 'vet' in common speech all the time.

Typos aside (always understandable), is the issue here that Uvajed's post thought it interesting that the primary British news source used "vet" in the primary English-language manner?

Fascinating that it's become ubiquitous enough that it's normal use, by a source most likely to use it so, can be considered interesting. Considering BBC being a reputable news agency, I don't see any other way it really could be used. They'd certainly not use it as an abbreviation.

There has been a significant increase in knife crime in the UK over the last decade. Guns however, have never been legal for common ownership in the UK (at least in recent history) and so it is entirely wrong to try to connect the recent increase in knife crime with the fact that guns have never been permitted. There is no connection between the two. You might have been correct had you said that many youths are using knives because of the difficulties they face when t